Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes

Chapter 4
Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period

Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes
4.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the methods used to develop non-linear numerical

models of short-period light-frame wood buildings from the archetype
designs of Chapter 3. The chapter discusses also the analysis methods used to
calculate response behavior and evaluate collapse performance of these
archetype models, and describes the different archetype models used for each
parametric study. Results of the parametric studies are presented and
discussed in Chapter 5.
The chapter begins with a summary of the main findings of the Phase I Pilot
Study.
4.2 Relevant Findings of the Phase I Pilot Study
4.2.1 Objective
In Phase I of the project, a Pilot Study was conducted on the Templeton

Hospital, a one-story light-frame wood hospital building with a complex
floor plan, and roof diaphragm layout (Tokas, C. and Lobo, R. 2012). The
building survived relatively strong ground motions in the 2003 San Simeon
earthquake with virtually no damage. The building was constructed in 1977
to California hospital criteria (with a permit from the Office of Statewide
Health Planning and Development, OSHPD), and was instrumented with
nine channels of strong motion instruments by the State of California
(California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, CSMIP).
The main objective of this Pilot Study was to evaluate current numerical
definitions of short period buildings and evaluate various complex behaviors
that would need to be introduced to the analytical models in order to better
predict the recorded response of the Templeton Building and offer more
realistic predictions of its collapse capacity.
4.2.2 Overview of Templeton Hospital
The Templeton Hospital is a one-story, irregular light-frame wood building

constructed in 1972. The plan dimension of the building is 335 ft. by 277 ft.
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-1
Only the instrumented North (N) wing of the hospital (see Figure 4-1) was
analyzed in the pilot study as a stand-alone structure. The vertical elements
of the seismic force resisting-system (SFRS) of the North wing structure
consists of perimeter wood shear walls along with interior wood shear walls
in the east-west direction, as illustrated in Figure 4-2. The vertical wood
shear walls are made of 2 x 6 studs at 16’ o.c. sheathed with ½-inch plywood
on one side. The horizontal elements of the SFRS of the North wing consists
of wood roof diaphragms sheathed with ½-inch plywood. The building is
founded on concrete grade beams located below the wood shear walls and on
top of a 5 in. thick concrete slab on grade.
Figure 4-1 Photographs of the North (N) wing of the Templeton Hospital
(Courtesy of John Lawson).
51’
51’
Wall inelastic spring
21’-5”
21’5’’ 21’-5”
21’5’
87’ 87’ 110’10’’110’-10”
Roof diaphragm 8’2’’
inelastic springs
N (360o)
Roof diaphragm Roof diaphragm

inelastic springs inelastic springs
Wood Shear Walls
Figure 4-2 Vertical elements of the SFRS of the North wing of the
Wall inelastic spring Templeton Hospital.
4.2.3 Wall inelastic spring of the Templeton Hospital

Instrumentation
The Templeton Hospital building survived the relatively strong ground

motions in the 2003 San Simeon earthquake with virtually no damage. As
Roof diaphragm
shown in Figure 4-3, the building has nine channels of strong motion
inelastic springs
Inelastic Wayne-Stewart
spring
N-S
4-2 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
E-W
Wall inelastic spring
instrumentation and a free-field instrument (installed after the 2003 San
Simeon earthquake). Instruments are located at the ground floor slab and on
the roof of the north and west wings of the building. Channel 2 (ground
floor) and Channels 4, 5 and 6 (roof) are oriented in the East (E) direction.
Channels 4 and 5 are near the top of shear walls at the north and south ends
of the North wing. Channel 6 is located on the diaphragm approximately at
the mid-point between Channels 4 and 5. The CSMIP record sets include
processed records, response spectra and Fourier spectra of each record.
Modeled North Wing
Figure 4-3 Location of nine channels of strong motion instrumentation of

the Templeton Hospital.
4.2.4 Modeling and Scope
Two non-linear numerical models of the selected North wing of the

Templeton Hospital building were developed. These two building models
incorporated various levels of complex behaviors to evaluate their influence
on the level of correlation between predicted and recorded responses. The
characteristics of two models are:
 Model 1: A basic model reflecting current modeling practice and

considering only the vertical elements (wood shear walls) of the
seismic force-resisting system (SFRS) of the building structure.
These vertical elements are assumed rigidly connected to each other
and anchored to a rigid foundation.
 Model 2: Model 1 above including the horizontal structural wood
panels and connectors of the roof diaphragm that transmit the inertial
seismic forces to the vertical elements of the SFRS in order to
evaluate the increased flexibility due to complex behaviors caused by
the in-plane wood roof diaphragm. Note that a very small viscous
damping ratio of 0.1% of critical (nominally zero damping) was
introduced in Model 2 since hysteretic damping in both the vertical
wood shear walls and horizontal roof diaphragm were explicitly
considered.
The development of the two models used the numerical framework

developed recently by Koliou et al. (2014, 2015) for rigid wall-flexible roof
diaphragm structures. The numerical modeling framework is based on a three
step sub-structuring approach including: (1) a hysteretic response database
for roof diaphragm connectors, (2) a two-dimensional inelastic roof
diaphragm model incorporating hysteretic connector response and (3) a
simplified building model incorporating hysteretic diaphragm model
response. The RUAUMOKO2D platform (Carr 2007) was used for the
development of the simplified building models.
Non-linear response history analyses were performed for each of the two
models under the ground motions recorded at the Templeton Hospital site
during the 2003 San Simeon Earthquake. Comparisons between predicted
and recorded acceleration time-histories in various locations of the building
were made in order to evaluate the effects of the different levels of
complexities included in the two models. Incremental dynamic analyses were
also conducted using the FEMA P695 Methodology (FEMA 2009) in order
to evaluate the effects of complex behaviors on the collapse capacity of the
building.
4.2.5 Main Findings – Model 1
Figure 4-4 shows the pushover curves in each principal direction of the north
wing of the Templeton Hospital predicted by Model 1. The seismic
coefficient (base shear / seismic weight) at peak strength is close to 0.9 in
both directions indicating a very laterally strong building. The peak strength
of the building occurs at a drift ratio of 2% in the East-West direction and at
2.2% in the North-South direction.
North-South (360 degrees) East-West (90 degrees)
1
0.8
Seismic Coefficient
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Roof Drift Ratio (%)
Figure 4-4 Pushover curves predicted by Model 1.
Figure 4-5 shows the first two natural periods and mode shapes of the north
wing of the Templeton Hospital predicted by Model 1. The fundamental
periods of the building in the East-West and North-Direction are very close
to each other. A predicted fundamental period of 0.160 sec is consistent with
the dominant period of roof response of the north wing in the E direction of
about 0.2s (5Hz) measured during the 2003 San Simeon earthquake.
T1=0.160 sec T2=0.158 sec T3=0.070 sec

1500 1500 1500
1000 1000 1000

Y (in)
Y (in)
Y (in)
500 500
500
0
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 -500 0 500 1000 -500 0 500 1000
X (in) X (in) X (in)
Figure 4-5 Natural periods and mode shapes predicted by Model 1.
Figure 4-6 compares the time histories of relative roof displacements (drifts)
and absolute roof accelerations measured in the East-West direction by
Channel 5 during the San Simeon earthquake against the predictions of Model
1. The model underestimates by approximately 35% both the measured peak
drift and acceleration. Significant differences between predicted and measured
response also occur throughout the dynamic response histories.
Relative Roof drift
Channel 5 - EW Model 1a
0.6
0.4
0.2
Drift (%)
0
-0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50
-0.4 0.40%
-0.6 0.60%
-0.8
Time (sec)
Absolute roof acceleration
Channel 5 - EW Model 1a
1
0.8 0.79g
Acceleration (g)
0.6 0.51g
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Time (sec)
Figure 4-6 Comparison of measured and predicted East-West response by

Model 1 of the North wing of the Templeton Hospital during the
San Simeon earthquake.
Figure 4-7 compares the time histories of relative roof displacements (drifts)
and absolute roof accelerations measured in the North-South direction by
Channel 9 during the San Simeon earthquake against the predictions of
Model 1. Again, the model significantly underestimates the measured peak
drift and acceleration and is unable to predict accurately the details of the
response histories.
Relative roof displacement (drift)
0.6 Channel 9 - NS Model 1a

0.4
0.2
Drift (%)
0
-0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50
-0.4 0.41%
-0.6 0.64%
-0.8
Time (sec)
0.8 Channel 9 - NS Model 1a
0.6 0.60g
Acceleration (g)
0.4 0.37g
0.2
0
-0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Time (sec)
Figure 4-7 Comparison of measured and predicted North-South response

by Model 1 of the North wing of the Templeton Hospital during
the San Simeon earthquake.
4.2.6 Main Findings – Model 2
Figure 4-8 shows the pushover curves in each principal direction of the North
wing of the Templeton Hospital predicted by Model 2. Again, the seismic
coefficient (base shear / seismic weight) at peak strength is above 0.9 in both
directions indicating a very laterally strong building. Again, the peak strength
of the building occurs at a drift ratio of 2% in the East-West direction and at
2.2% in the North-South direction.
North-South (360 degrees) East-West (90 degrees)
1
0.8
Seismic Coefficient
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Roof Drift Ratio (%)
Figure 4-8 Pushover curves predicted by Model 2.
Figure 4-9 shows the first three natural periods and mode shapes of the north
wing of the Templeton Hospital predicted by Model 2. Similar to Model 1,
the fundamental periods of the building in the East-West and North-South
directions are very close to each other. The fundamental period of 0.190 sec
predicted by Model 2 is almost identical to the dominant period of roof
response of the north wing in the E direction of about 0.2s (5 Hz) measured
during the San Simeon earthquake.
T1=0.190sec T2=0.188 sec

1500 1500 1500
1000 1000 1000
Y (in)
Y (in)
Y (in)
500 500
500
0
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 -500 0 500 1000 -500
X (in) X (in)
Figure 4-9 Natural periods and mode shapes predicted by Model 2.
Figure 4-10 compares the central portions (20 to 30 sec) of time histories of
relative roof displacements (drifts) and absolute roof accelerations measured
in the East-West direction by Channel 5 during the San Simeon earthquake
against the predictions of Model 2. The model predicts almost exactly both
the measured peak drift and acceleration. In addition, almost perfect
correlation can be observed between the predicted and measured dynamic
response histories. This result indicates that the in-plane flexibility of the
roof diaphragm was an important contributor to the dynamic response of the
North wing of the Templeton hospital during the San Simeon earthquake.
Channel
Channel 55 -- EW
EW Model 2a
Model 2a -- 0%
0% damping
damping
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
Drift (%)
Drift (%)
00
-0.2200
-0.2 22
10 24
20 26
30 28
40 30
50
0.58%
-0.4
-0.4 0.60%
0.58% - Predicted
-0.6
-0.6 0.60% - Measured
-0.8
-0.8
Time
Time (sec)
(sec)
Absolute roof acceleration 2nd Floor Plan
Channel
Channel55- -EW
EW Model
Model2a
2a--0%
0%damping
damping
11
0.8
0.8 0.79g - Measured0.79g
0.77g - Predicted 0.77g
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
00
-0.2
-0.2200 22
10 24
20 26
30 28
40 30
50
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.6
-0.8
-0.8
Time
Time(sec)
(sec)
Figure 4-10 Comparison of measured and predicted East-West response by

Model 2 of the North wing of the Templeton Hospital during the
San Simeon earthquake.
Figure 4-11 compare the central portions (20 to 30 sec) of the time histories
of relative roof displacements (drifts) and absolute roof accelerations
measured in the North-South direction by Channel 9 during the San Simeon
earthquake against the predictions of Model 1. Again, Model 2 predicts
almost perfectly the measured drift and acceleration histories. The level of
drift level predicted by Model 2 (0.58%) is consistent with the observed
quasi-elastic response of the building during the San Simeon earthquake.
Channel
Channel 99 -- NS
NS Model 2a - 0% damping
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
(%)
Drift (%)
00
Drift
-0.2 20
-0.2 0 22
10 24
20 26
30 28
40 30
50
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.6 0.61% - Predicted 0.61%
0.64% - Measured 0.64%
-0.8
-0.8
Time
Time (sec)
(sec)
Absolute roof acceleration 2nd Floo
Channel
Channel 99 -- NS
NS Model
Model 2a
2a--0%
0%damping
damping
0.8
0.8
0.60g - Measured 0.60g
0.6
0.6 0.58g - Predicted
0.58g
(g)
Acceleration (g)
0.4
0.4
Acceleration
0.2
0.2
00
-0.2 0
-0.2 20 10
22 20
24 30
26 40
28 50
30
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.6
-0.8
-0.8
Time
Time (sec)
(sec)
Figure 4-11 Comparison of measured and predicted North-South response

by Model 2 of the North wing of the Templeton Hospital during
the San Simeon earthquake.
Bi-directional Incremental Dynamic Analyses (IDAs) were conducted using

Model 2. The FEMA P695 far-field ground motions record set was used and
each record (i.e., 22 records, 2 components each) was applied in the two
orthogonal orientations relative to the axes of the model, i.e., an North-South
(NS) – East-West (EW) orientation of records and a EW-NS orientation or
records rotated 90 degrees in plan. The records were scaled in accordance
with Sections 6.2.3, 6.4.3 and Appendix A of FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009).
The intensity measure was taken as the median spectral acceleration of the
records set at a fundamental period of 0.25 sec. The collapse capacity of the
model was defined as the last survival intensity before second order (P-)
effects caused numerical instability in the model.
Figure 4-12 shows the resulting bi-directional IDA curves and collapse
fragility curve predicted by Model 2. The median collapse capacity from the
analysis is 2.09 g. According to FEMA P695, this raw collapse capacity
needs to be multiplied by a bi-directional calibration factor of 1.2 to account
for bi-directional effects and by a spectral shape factor equal to 1.14 in this
case. The resulting FEMA P695 median collapse capacity then becomes 2.86
g. This FEMA P695 collapse performance is not consistent (i.e. an order of
magnitude too low) with the Office of Emergency Services (OES) Red Tag
data from the 1994 Northridge earthquake, as discussed in Chapter 2.
Fitted Lognormal Fragility
5 1
4 0.8
Sa (T=0.25 sec) [g]
P[Collapse]
3 0.6
2 0.4
Median( )=2.09 g
1 0.2
Variance( )= 0.39
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Max. interstory drift(%) Sa (T=0.25 sec) [g]
Figure 4-12 Bi-directional IDA curves and collapse fragility of the North wing
of the Templeton Hospital predicted by Model 2.
4.2.7 Summary of Findings
The pilot study conducted on a well-instrumented wing of the Templeton

Hospital indicated that modeling the in-plane diaphragm flexibility is
important to predict with accuracy the observed building response during the
2003 San Simeon earthquake. The model incorporating the in-plane roof
diaphragm flexibility (Model 2) reproduced almost perfectly the quasi-elastic
dynamic response characteristics of the Templeton Hospital recorded during
the 2003 San Simeon earthquake.
It is important to note that this excellent correlation was obtained despite the
consideration of non-structural wall finishes on the exterior walls (stucco on
the outside and gypsum wallboard on the inside) and of the interior gypsum
wallboard partition walls. Limited supplementary analyses incorporating wall
finishes in Model 2 showed very little difference in elastic dynamic response.
This can be attributed to the already very high lateral strength and stiffness of
the Templeton Hospital contributed by the wood shear walls, which
overwhelmed the effects of non-structural wall finishes. It is believed that the
effects of non-structural wall finishes will be more significant for the code-
compliant Chapter 3 archetype designs.
Finally, the FEMA P695 collapse performance predicted by the model of the
Templeton Hospital is not consistent (one order of magnitude too low) with
OES Red Tag data from the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Other modeling
features not considered in the pilot study (but considered in this report) may
also be important. More sophisticated modeling (e.g. three-dimensional
modeling with more accurate building response characteristics) needs to be
developed for this purpose.
4.3 Modeling Methods
For modeling the inelastic dynamic response and seismic collapse

mechanisms of the short-period light-frame wood archetype configurations
including modeling features not considered in the Phase 1 Pilot Study, the
Timber3D analysis program developed at Clemson University (Pang et al.
2012) was used. This software along with the methods used to analyze the
archetype designs of Chapter 3 are described in this section.
4.3.1 Overview of Timber3D
The Timber3D analysis program is a three-dimensional (3D) model

developed as part of the NEES-Soft project (van de Lindt et al. 2012) to
capture the non-linear dynamic response and seismic collapse mechanisms of
light-frame wood buildings. This 3D model is an extension of detailed 2D
models developed earlier for the collapse analysis of light-frame wood shear
walls (Pang and Shirazi 2012; Christovasilis and Filiatrault 2010, 2013).
The Timber3D model operates on the Matlab platform using a co-rotational

formulation and large displacement theory. The horizontal floor and roof
diaphragms are modelled using co-rotational 3D, two-node, 12-DOF elastic
beam elements, which accounts for geometric non-linearity. Using a co-
rotational formulation allows proper consideration of the in-plane and out-of-
plane motions of the diaphragms under large deformations.
The elastic flexural and axial stiffness of vertical wall studs are modeled
using 3D, two-node 12-degrees-of-freedom (DOF) elastic frame elements.
The vertical wall panel-to-framing assemblies are modeled using 6-DOF,
Frame-to-Frame (F2F) link elements. For this project, only one (lateral) DOF
of the F2F link element is activated to model the lateral non-linear cyclic
response of vertical walls sheathed with wood panels and other (non-
structural) materials.
The non-linear lateral cyclic response of vertical walls is captured by the

CUREE hysteretic rule (Folz and Filiatrault 2001), as illustrated in Fig. 4-13.
The loading force-deformation paths OA and CD follow a non-linear
exponential monotonic envelope curve, while all other unloading and re-
loading paths exhibit a linear relationship between force and deformation.
This hysteretic rule allows for stiffness and strength degradation as well as
post-capping reducing strength. The CUREE hysteretic rule is completely
determined by 10 physically identifiable parameters, as defined in Table 4-1.
30 
F (u,Fu)
K0 1r K
A 2 0
20
1 G I
F0 
 F0 
10 Kp  K 0  
 0
K   max 
Force, F (kN)
F
FI 1
E B
0 O r4K0
1 C 1 120 C y c lic L o a d in g P r o to c o l
I
r3K0
Displacement (mm)
-10 80
A G
40
0 O
-20
D H
-40
D
-80
-30
-80 -40 0 40 80 120
Displacement,  (mm)
Figure 4-13 CUREE hysteretic rule for modeling force-displacement

response of wood shear walls under cyclic Loading.
Table 4-1 Definition of Hysteretic Parameters of CUREE Hysteretic

Rule.
Parameter
Definition
(see Fig. 4-13)
K0 Initial stiffness
F0 Force intercept of the asymptotic stiffness at ultimate strength
FI Zero-displacement load intercept
u Displacement at ultimate load
r1 Asymptotic stiffness ratio under monotonic load
r2 Post-capping strength stiffness ratio under monotonic load
r3 Unloading stiffness ratio
r4 Re-loading pinched stiffness ratio
 Hysteretic parameter for stiffness degradation
 Hysteretic parameter for stiffness degradation
The CUREE hysteretic rule is modified for this project in order to introduce a
user-defined residual strength of vertical walls. The post-capping strength
stiffness (r2K0) is replaced by an S-shaped curve anchored at a displacement
Dx and converging to pre-determined residual strength level at large
displacements, as shown in Fig. 4-14.
Figure 4-14 Modification of CUREE hysteretic rule for modeling residual

strength.
4.3.2 Baseline Archetype Models
Figure 4-15 illustrates a single-story short-period light-frame wood baseline

archetype configuration modelled using the Timber3D analysis program. As
described above, the horizontal roof diaphragm is modelled using co-
rotational 3D, two-node, 12-DOF elastic beam elements. The model includes
vertical wall elements composed of a limited number of standard non-linear
wall “building blocks”. The sill plate and concrete foundation attached to the
bottom nodes of the building blocks are modeled with elastic beam elements.
Anchored bolts and hold-down devices are modeled with F2F link elements.
Similarly, the imperfect connectivity (i.e. uplift) between the studs and the
sill plate and the sill plate and the concrete foundation are also modeled with
F2F link elements. Finally, F2F link elements can also be used to model non-
linear soil springs. For the baseline archetype configurations, only the
roof/floor diaphragms and shear wall building blocks are activated, while all
the other elements are assumed rigid. These elements are modified as
required for the parametric investigations of Soil-Structure Interaction
(SSI)/foundation flexibility, imperfect connectivity (e.g., shear wall elements
to foundation elements) and hold-down device flexibility, as described later.
The modeling methods and physical properties assigned to these individual
elements are briefly described in the following sections.
Figure 4-15 Schematic illustration of 1-story 3D “baseline” model

configuration. Note. “Rigid” assumptions of the “baseline”
model elements will be modified as required for parametric
investigation of SSI/foundation flexibility, imperfect connectivity
(e.g., shear wall elements to foundation elements) and hold-
down device flexibility.
4.3.3 Non-linear Wall “Building Blocks”
To avoid unnecessary detailed modeling of unique wall properties, all

vertical walls (structural and non-structural) are based on 4 ft. x 10 ft. and 8
ft. x 10 ft. non-linear wall building blocks made of various common
sheathing and framing materials. As described in Chapter 3, all archetype
designs are based on a 10 ft. wall height. A typical wall building block is
illustrated in Fig. 4-16. Each building block is composed of four nodes with
two vertical end studs and two horizontal plates modelled by elastic frame
elements along with a F2F link element representing the non-linear lateral
cyclic response of vertical walls by the CUREE hysteretic rule, as described
above. Each building block could then model:
 The axial and in-plane flexural deformation of the end studs.
 The in-plane flexural deformation of the top and bottom plates.
 The non-linear lateral cyclic response of the sheathing-to-framing
assembly.
 The imperfect connectivity (e.g. uplift) between the end studs and
the sill plate.
Nodes
4 ft. or 8 ft.
0 ft. Wood top plate:
Elastic beam element
Node
End stud:
12-DOF elastic
10 ft. frame elements
Shear wall:
6-DOF F2F link element
with CUREE hysteresis rule
Wood sill plate:

0 ft. Nodes
Concrete foundation:
0 ft.
Nodes
Figure 4-16 Schematic illustration of vertical wall building block.
The building block could represent walls with various sheathing materials.
For this purpose, each sheathing material is assigned its individual CUREE
hysteretic rule parameters. The following FEMA P-807 combination rules
are applied for determining how different sheathing types interact when
applied to the same wall segment (FEMA 2012).
1. Walls with similar sheathing materials on both sides are added

directly in a linear manner. These include:
a. Walls sheathed on two sides with wood structural panels.
b. Walls sheathed with any type of gypsum on both sides
2. Walls sheathed with dissimilar materials are added with 100 percent
of the strength of the strongest sheathing type and 50% of the
strength for the other sheathing types. The stiffness of all materials
remain at 100% of their individual properties.
Table 4-2 defines the nine different individual vertical wall building blocks
(made of single sheathing materials) included in the archetype designs of
Chapter 3.
Table 4-2 Definition of Individual Vertical Wall Building Blocks
Contained in Chapter 3 Archetype Designs.
Building
Definition
Block ID
7/16 in. OSB sheathing on Douglas Fir Framing, single-row of 8d

OSB-Low
common nails @ 6 in. O.C. along all panel edges.
7/16 in. OSB sheathing on Douglas Fir Framing, single-row of 8d
OSB-Medium
common nails @ 3 in. O.C. along all panel edges.
19/32 in. OSB sheathing on Douglas Fir Framing, triple-rows of
OSB-High
10d common nails @ 2 in. O.C. along all panel edges.
Non-structural OSB used to fill exterior walls, same as OSB-Low
OSB-Nonstruc
but with minimum nailing.
1/2 in. Gyp on unblocked studs at 16 in. O.C, 5d cooler nails @ 7
Min Gyp
in. O.C. along all panel edges.
5/8 in. Gyp on unblocked studs at 16 in. O.C, 6d cooler nails @ 4
Max Gyp
in. O.C. along all panel edges.
Non-structural gypsum walls, same as Min Gyp but with floating
Nonstruc Gyp
corner construction.
Stucco New stucco construction.
Siding Vinyl siding.
A set of 10 CUREE hysteretic parameters were defined for each of the

individual 4 ft. x 10 ft. and 8ft. x 10ft. building block configurations shown
in Table 4-2. The definition of these hysteretic parameters was based on a
combination of analytical procedures using sheathing-to-framing connection
test data (Folz and Filiatrault 2001), review of available test data and expert
judgement to model the “best estimate” of vertical wall building blocks
properties. Tables 4-3 and 4-4 lists the resulting CUREE hysteretic
parameters for the individual 4 ft. x 10 ft. and 8ft. x 10 ft. vertical wall
building block configurations, respectively, while Figs. 4-17 and 4-18
compare the backbone force-displacement relationships for these same
building block configurations. Note that the initial stiffness of the 4 ft. long
building blocks is reduced by a factor of three compared to the initial
stiffness of the 8 ft. long building blocks. This reduction is not proportional
to the length because of the anticipated increased bending flexibility of
shorter building blocks. Note also that based on limited experimental
evidence (Carradine 2013; Swensen et al. 2014), a residual strength
corresponding to 30% of the peak strength was assigned to all basic vertical
wall building block configurations (except for siding which was not assigned
any residual strength).
Table 4-3 CUREE Hysteretic Parameters for 8 ft. x 10 ft. Individual
Vertical Wall Building Blocks Contained in Chapter 3
Archetype Designs.
Building K0 F0 FI u
r1 r2 r3 r4 α β
Block ID [kip/in] [kip] [kip] [in]
OSB-Low 15.00 3.830 2.1600 1.91 0.0760 -0.0278 1.01 0.005 0.75 1.05
OSB-
15.00 8.120 2.5000 1.92 0.0760 -0.0463 1.06 0.005 0.75 1.04
Medium
OSB-High 24.00 13.00 4.8000 1.92 0.0760 -0.0463 1.02 0.005 0.77 1.15
OSB-
12.00 3.064 1.7280 1.91 0.0760 -0.0278 1.01 0.005 0.75 1.05
Nonstruc
Min Gyp 5.20 1.190 0.3352 0.96 0.1700 -0.0534 1.45 0.017 0.38 1.09
Max Gyp 9.10 1.940 0.5363 0.96 0.1500 -0.0488 1.45 0.017 0.38 1.09
Nonstruc
2.50 1.260 0.3352 0.96 0.4600 -0.1111 1.45 0.017 0.38 1.09
Gyp
Stucco 25.00 4.000 1.3471 1.20 0.1335 -0.0266 1.45 0.005 0.38 1.09
Siding 1.13 0.600 0.0200 4.80 0.1700 -0.0373 1.45 0.005 0.38 1.09
Table 4-4 CUREE Hysteretic Parameters for 4 ft. x 10 ft. Individual

Vertical Wall Building Blocks Contained in Chapter 3
Archetype Designs.
Building K0 F0 FI u
r1 r2 r3 r4 α β
Block ID [kip/in] [kip] [kip] [in]
OSB-Low 5.0000 2.32 2.1600 1.91 0.076 -0.0417 1.01 0.005 0.75 1.05
OSB-
5.0000 4.99 2.5000 1.92 0.092 -0.0695 1.06 0.005 0.75 1.04
Medium
OSB-High 8.0000 7.98 4.8000 1.92 0.092 -0.0695 1.02 0.005 0.77 1.15
OSB-
4.0000 1.86 1.7280 1.91 0.076 -0.0417 1.01 0.005 0.75 1.05
Nonstruc
Min Gyp 1.7333 1.19 0.3352 0.96 0.090 -0.0801 1.45 0.017 0.38 1.09
Max Gyp 3.0333 1.70 0.5363 0.96 0.090 -0.0732 1.45 0.017 0.38 1.09
Nonstruc
1.2500 0.63 0.1676 0.96 0.460 -0.1111 1.45 0.005 0.38 1.09
Gyp
Stucco 8.3333 2.53 1.3471 1.20 0.155 -0.0400 1.45 0.005 0.38 1.09
Siding 0.3767 0.41 0.0200 4.80 0.200 -0.0560 1.45 0.005 0.38 1.09
Backbone Curves for 8 ft. x 10 ft. Wall Building Blocks (30%Fmax)
18
OSB Nonstruc
16 OSB Low
OSB Medium
14 OSB High
Gyp Min
12 Gyp Max
Gyp Nonstruc
Force (kip)
10 Stucco
Siding
0
0 5 10 15
Drift (%)
Figure 4-17 Comparison of backbone curves for 8 ft. x 10 ft. individual
vertical wall building blocks contained in Chapter 3 archetype
Backbone Curves for 4 ft. x 10 ft. Wall Building Blocks (30%Fmax)
designs.
18
OSB Nonstruc
16 OSB Low
OSB Medium
14 OSB High
Gyp Min
12 Gyp Max
Gyp Nonstruc
Force (kip)
10 Stucco
Siding
0
0 5 10 15
Drift (%)
Figure 4-18 Comparison of backbone curves for 4 ft. x 10 ft. individual
vertical wall building blocks contained in Chapter 3 archetype
designs.
Table 4-5 lists the 32 building block combinations (combining multiple

sheathing materials) contained in the archetype designs of Chapter 3.
Table 4-5 Definition of Vertical Wall Building Block Combinations
Combo
Wall Type Description
ID
OSB-Low with Stucco over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on inside

Exterior-1 Exterior Walls
face.
OSB-Med with Stucco over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on inside
face.
OSB-High with Stucco over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on inside
face.
OSB-Nonstruc with Stucco over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on inside
face.
Exterior-5 Exterior Walls OSB-Low with Siding over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on inside face.
Exterior-6 Exterior Walls OSB-Med with Siding over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on inside face.
Exterior-7 Exterior Walls OSB-High with Siding over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on inside face.
OSB-Nonstruc with Siding over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on inside
face.
OSB-Low both sides with Stucco over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on
inside face.
OSB-Med both sides with Stucco over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on
inside face.
OSB-High both sides with Stucco over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on
inside face.
OSB-Low both sides with Siding over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on
inside face.
OSB-Med both sides with Siding over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on
inside face.
OSB-High both sides with Siding over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on
inside face.
Interior-1 Interior walls Min. Gyp. both sides.
Interior-2 Interior walls Max. Gyp. both sides.
Interior-3 Interior walls Nonstruc. Gyp. both sides.
Interior-4 Interior walls OSB-Low one side, Nonstruc. Gyp. both sides.
Interior-5 Interior walls OSB-Med one side, Nonstruc. Gyp. both sides.
Interior-6 Interior walls OSB-High on one side, Nonstruc. Gyp. both sides.
Interior-7 Interior walls OSB-Low one side, Min. Gyp. both sides.
Interior-8 Interior walls OSB-Med one side, Min. Gyp. both sides.
Interior-9 Interior walls OSB-High on one side, Min. Gyp. both sides.
Party &
PartyCor-1 Min. Gyp. one side.
Corridor Walls
Party &
PartyCor-2 Max. Gyp. one side.
Corridor Walls
Party &
PartyCor-3 Nonstruc. Gyp. one side.
Corridor Walls
Party &
PartyCor-4 OSB-Low with Nonstruc. Gyp. same side.
Corridor Walls
Party &
PartyCor-5 OSB-Med with Nonstruc. Gyp. Same side.
Corridor Walls
Party &
PartyCor-6 OSB-High with Nonstruc. Gyp. Same side.
Corridor Walls
Party &
PartyCor-7 OSB-Low with Min. Gyp. same side.
Corridor Walls
Party &
PartyCor-8 OSB-Med with Min. Gyp. Same side.
Corridor Walls
Party &
PartyCor-9 OSB-High with Min. Gyp. Same side.
Corridor Walls
Figures 4-19 and 4-20 compare the backbone force-displacement
relationships for the 8ft. x 10 ft. and 4ft. x 10 ft. building block combinations,
respectively, based on FEMA P-807 combination rules described earlier.
Figure 4-19 Comparison of backbone curves for 8 ft. x 10 ft. vertical wall
building block combinations contained in Chapter 3 archetype
designs.
Figure 4-20 Comparison of backbone curves for 4 ft. x 10 ft. vertical wall
building block combinations contained in Chapter 3 archetype
designs.
For the purpose of comparison and validation of analysis results, a number of
characteristics response properties consistent with the FEMA P795
definitions (FEMA 2011) were calculated for the individual and
combinations of vertical wall building block backbone curves. Note that
FEMA P795 would require calculating these parameters based on cyclic test
results. However, because it has been shown experimentally that, the
monotonic and cyclic backbone curves for wood, gypsum and stucco wall
assemblies under seismic input are similar (Gatto and Uang 2001); the
monotonic backbone curves of the building blocks are used to calculate the
response parameters. These characteristic response parameters are:
 The secant stiffness at 40% of the peak strength, K40, in the loading
portion of the force-displacement response.
 The drift at 80% of the peak strength, u,80, in the post-capping
portion of the force-displacement response.
 The maximum drift, u,max, in the post-capping portion of the force
displacement response. For the individual and combinations of
vertical wall building block backbone curves, u,max, is taken as the
drift level corresponding to the start of the residual strength plateau.
This response parameter is not included in FEMA P795 but is
introduced in this study because of the consideration of residual
strengths in the archetype models.
Tables 4-6 and 4-7 present the FEMA P795 characteristics response
parameters for the individual vertical wall building blocks and for the vertical
wall building block combinations, respectively.
Table 4-6 FEMA P795 CUREE Characteristic Response Parameters for
Individual Vertical Wall Building Blocks Contained in
Chapter 3 Archetype Designs.
4’x10’ Building Blocks 8’x10’ Building Blocks
Combo ID
K40 u,80 u,max K40 u,80 u,max

[kip/in] [in/in] [in/in] [kip/in] [in/in] [in/in]
OSB-Low 3.17 4.00 10.00 10.71 4.00 10.00

OSB-Medium 3.44 4.00 10.00 11.67 4.00 10.00
OSB-High 5.50 4.00 10.00 18.67 4.00 10.00
OSB-Nonstruc 2.56 4.00 10.00 8.57 4.00 10.00
Min Gyp 1.23 2.00 5.00 3.98 2.00 5.00
Max Gyp 2.13 2.00 5.00 6.92 2.00 5.00
Nonstruc Gyp 0.79 2.00 5.00 2.39 2.00 5.00
Stucco 5.33 3.00 8.00 16.95 3.00 8.00
Siding 0.24 10.00 N/A 0.72 10.00 N/A
Table 4-7 FEMA P795 CUREE Characteristic Response Parameters for
Vertical Wall Building Block Combinations Contained in
4’x10’ Building Blocks 8’x10’ Building Blocks

Building Block ID
K40 u,80 u,max K40 u,80 u,max

[kip/in] [in/in] [in/in] [kip/in] [in/in] [in/in]
Exterior-1 7.50 3.58 10.00 20.57 3.58 10.00
Exterior-2 7.62 3.69 10.00 20.66 3.69 10.00
Exterior-3 10.05 3.77 10.00 27.46 3.77 10.00
Exterior-4 6.71 3.54 10.00 18.36 3.54 10.00
Exterior-5 4.41 4.22 N/A 12.12 4.22 N/A
Exterior-6 4.81 4.15 N/A 13.32 4.15 N/A
Exterior-7 7.31 4.10 N/A 20.33 4.10 N/A
Exterior-8 3.66 4.26 N/A 10.04 4.26 N/A
Exterior-9 11.33 3.72 10.00 31.13 3.72 10.00
Exterior-10 11.70 3.81 10.00 32.26 3.81 10.00
Exterior-11 16.64 3.87 10.00 46.29 3.87 10.00
Exterior-12 8.24 4.12 N/A 22.83 4.12 N/A
Exterior-13 8.97 4.08 N/A 24.99 4.08 N/A
Exterior-14 13.96 4.05 N/A 39.00 4.05 N/A
Interior-1 2.97 2.01 5.00 7.96 2.01 5.00
Interior-2 5.13 2.01 5.00 13.85 2.01 5.00
Interior-3 1.90 2.01 5.00 4.77 2.01 5.00
Interior-4 4.27 3.66 10.00 11.78 3.66 10.00
Interior-5 4.66 3.78 10.00 12.94 3.78 10.00
Interior-6 7.14 3.86 10.00 20.00 3.86 10.00
Interior-7 4.63 3.66 10.00 12.83 3.66 10.00
Interior-8 4.88 3.78 10.00 13.57 3.78 10.00
Interior-9 7.38 3.86 10.00 20.67 3.86 10.00
PartyCor-1 1.49 2.01 5.00 3.98 2.01 5.00
PartyCor-2 2.56 2.01 5.00 6.92 2.01 5.00
PartyCor-3 0.95 2.01 5.00 2.39 2.01 5.00
PartyCor-4 4.27 3.66 10.00 11.78 3.66 10.00
PartyCor-5 4.66 3.78 10.00 12.94 3.78 10.00
PartyCor-6 7.14 3.86 10.00 20.00 3.86 10.00
PartyCor-7 4.63 3.66 10.00 12.83 3.66 10.00
PartyCor-8 4.88 3.78 10.00 13.57 3.78 10.00
PartyCor-9 7.38 3.86 10.00 20.67 3.86 10.00
4.3.4 Imperfect Connectivity between Wood Sill Plate and Concrete
Foundation
To model the influence of imperfect connectivity between the wood sill plate
and the concrete foundation on the response of the archetype designs of
Chapter 3, linear F2F link elements are introduced between the concrete
foundation and the wood sill plate, as illustrated in Fig. 4-21. The F2F link
elements represent the axial response of the anchor (shear) bolts at the
locations provided by the designs of Chapter 3. The wood sill plate is
modelled by elastic beam elements. The vertical DOFs of the F2F link
elements are released to model the separation between the wood sill plate and
the concrete foundation.
Wood Sill plate
(Elastic Beam element)
Nodes
Concrete foundation
Shear Bolt
0 ft. (Elastic Beam Element)
Springs
Nodes
Shear bolt springs

Force-displacement response
Tension
KTsb
Contraction Elongation
KCsb
Compression
Figure 4-21 Schematic illustration of modeling of imperfect connectivity

between the wood sill plate and the concrete foundation.
In tension, each F2F element is assigned a linear stiffness (KTsb) equal to the
tensile stiffness of the un-bonded portion of the shear bolt (Kb) in series with
the compression stiffness of the wood sill plate (Kw) under the plate washer:
K bK w
K Tsb 
Kb  Kw
[4-1]
E A E /R A pw Cb l  0.375
with : K b  b b ; K w  w ; Cb  b
h h lb
where:
Eb = Young’s modulus of the shear bolt (29,000 ksi).
Ab = Cross-sectional area of the shear bolt.
h = Thickness of the wood sill plate (1.5 in. for 2x sill plates and 2.5
in. for 3x sill plates).
Ew = Young’s modulus of the wood sill plate parallel to grain (1700
ksi).
R = Reduction factor for Young’s modulus of the wood sill plate
perpendicular to grain taken as 30 in this study.
Apw = Cross-sectional area of the plate washer.
lb = bearing length between the plate washer and the wood sill plate.
The un-bonded length of a shear bolt is assumed equal to the thickness of the
wood sill plate (e.g. 1.5 in. for a 2 x 4 sill plate). The contact area between
the plate washer and the wood sill plate is multiplied by the bearing area
factor Cb from the 2015 NDS to obtain a more realistic effective contact area
between the plate washer and the wood still plate.
In compression, each F2F element is assigned a linear stiffness (KCsb) equal

to the compression stiffness of the wood sill plate between anchor bolts:
K Csb 
E w /R w s [4-2]
h
where:
w = Width of the wood sill plate (3.5 in. for 2x4 and 2x6 sill plates
and 5.5 in. for 2x6 and 3x6 sill plates).
s = Spacing of the shear bolts.
Table 4-8 lists the physical properties and tensile stiffness values assigned to
the different anchor bolt and sill plate configurations included in the
archetype designs of Chapter 3. Table 4-9 list the corresponding compression
stiffness.
Table 4-8 Physical Properties and Tensile stiffness for Anchor Bolt and
Sill Plate Configurations Contained in Chapter 3 Archetype
Designs.
Ab lb Apw Kb Kw KTsb
Configuration Cb
(in2) (in) (in2) (kip/in) (kip/in) (kip/in)
2x sill plate; 5/8"

diameter shear bolt; 0.31 3.00 8.69 1.13 5931 369 348
3"x3" plate washer
2x sill plate; 5/8"
4.5"x3" plate washer
3x sill plate; 5/8"
3"x3" plate washer
3x sill plate; 5/8"
3x sill plate; 3/4"
3"x3" plate washer
3x sill plate; 3/4"
2x sill plate; 1/2"
3"x3" plate washer
2x sill plate; 1/2"
2x sill plate; 1/2"
diameter shear bolt;
0.20 1.06 0.69 1.35 3796 35 35
Standard 1-1/16" dia.
washer
2x sill plate; 0.145 inch
0.02 1.42 1.56 1.26 319 75 60
diameter shot pin
Table 4-9 Compression stiffness for Anchor Bolt and Sill Plate
Configurations Contained in Chapter 3 Archetype Designs.
Configuration KCsb (kip/in)
2x4 sill plate; 1/2" or 5/8" diameter shear bolts spaced at 48" o.c. 6347
2x4 sill plate; 1/2" diameter shear bolts spaced at 40" o.c. 5289
2x6 sill plate; 1/2" or 5/8" diameter shear bolts spaced at 48" o.c. 9973
4.3.5 Imperfect Connectivity between Vertical Studs and Sill Plate
To model the influence of imperfect connectivity between the vertical studs

and the sill plate on the response of the archetype designs of Chapter 3, non-
linear F2F link elements are introduced between the end studs and the sill
plate, as illustrated in Fig. 4-22. The F2F link elements represent the restraint
on the uplift of the studs caused by some portion of the wood sheathing
nailed to the wood sill plate. The sill plate is modelled by elastic beam
elements.
4 ft. or 8 ft.
Vertical wall
10 ft. building block
Sill plate:
0 ft. End Studs
Springs
Nodes
End studs springs

Tension
FyTes
KTes KTes
KCes
Compression

between the end studs and the sill plate.
In tension, each F2F element is assigned an initial stiffness (KTes)

corresponding to two feet for walls at the foundation and one foot for walls
above wood framing reaching yield at a stretch of 0.1. A tension yield
capacity (FyTes) is also assigned to each F2F element to represent the nominal
shear strength of two feet for walls at the foundation and one foot for walls
above wood framing. No strain hardening and no strength degradation in
tension is included. In compression, each F2F element is assigned a linear
stiffness (KCes) equal to the compression stiffness under a pack of studs:
E w /R AspCb
K Ces 
h
L  0.375 [4-3]
with : Cb  b
Lb
where:
Asp = Cross sectional area of the stud pack.
Lb = Bearing length of the stud pack.
The contact area between the pack of studs and the wood sill plate is
multiplied by the bearing area factor Cb from the 2015 NDS to obtain a more
realistic bearing area.
Table 4-10 lists the physical properties, tensile stiffness values and yield
strengths assigned to the different end studs springs for the wall
configurations included in the archetype designs of Chapter 3. Table 4-11
lists the corresponding compression stiffness.
Table 4-10 Physical Properties, Tensile stiffness and Yield Strength for
End of Studs Configurations Contained in Chapter 3
Archetype Designs.
Nominal Ground Level Upper Floors
Shear
Strength
Combo ID Ktes FYTes Ktes FYTes
for 8'
Long Wall (kip/in) (kip) (kip/in) (kip)
(kip)
Exterior-1 10.64 26.59 2.66 13.30 1.33
Exterior-2 14.63 36.57 3.66 18.28 1.83
Exterior-3 20.63 51.58 5.16 25.79 2.58
Exterior-4 9.44 23.59 2.36 11.79 1.18
Exterior-5 7.34 18.36 1.84 9.18 0.92
Exterior-6 11.34 28.34 2.83 14.17 1.42
Exterior-7 17.34 43.34 4.33 21.67 2.17
Exterior-8 6.14 15.35 1.54 7.68 0.77
Exterior-9 16.64 41.60 4.16 20.80 2.08
Exterior-10 24.63 61.57 6.16 30.78 3.08
Exterior-11 36.63 91.57 9.16 45.79 4.58
Exterior-12 13.35 33.37 3.34 16.68 1.67
Exterior-13 21.34 53.34 5.33 26.67 2.67
Exterior-14 33.34 83.34 8.33 41.67 4.17
Interior-1 4.00 10.00 1.00 5.00 0.50
Interior-2 6.40 16.00 1.60 8.00 0.80
Interior-3 4.00 10.00 1.00 5.00 0.50
Interior-4 6.87 17.18 1.72 8.59 0.86
Interior-5 10.87 27.17 2.72 13.58 1.36
Interior-6 16.87 42.17 4.22 21.08 2.11
Interior-7 6.87 17.18 1.72 8.59 0.86
Interior-8 10.87 27.17 2.72 13.58 1.36
Interior-9 16.87 42.17 4.22 21.08 2.11
PartyCor-1 2.00 5.00 0.50 2.50 0.25
PartyCor-2 3.20 8.00 0.80 4.00 0.40
PartyCor-3 2.00 5.00 0.50 2.50 0.25
PartyCor-4 6.87 17.18 1.72 8.59 0.86
PartyCor-5 10.87 27.17 2.72 13.58 1.36
PartyCor-6 16.87 42.17 4.22 21.08 2.11
PartyCor-7 6.87 17.18 1.72 8.59 0.86
PartyCor-8 10.87 27.17 2.72 13.58 1.36
PartyCor-9 16.87 42.17 4.22 21.08 2.11
Table 4-11 Physical Properties and Compression Stiffness or End of
Studs Configurations Contained in Chapter 3 Archetype
Designs.
Asp Lb KCes
Configuration Cb
(in2) (in) (kip/in)
1-2x4 studs; 2x4 sill plate 5.25 1.50 1.25 7438

1- 2x4 studs; 2x4 sill plate 5.25 1.50 1.25 7438
4.3.6 Imperfect Connectivity from Hold-Down Rods
To model the influence of hold-down rods on the non-linear seismic response

of the archetype designs of Chapter 3, non-linear F2F link elements are
introduced between adjacent floors, as illustrated in Fig. 4-23. The vertical
DOFs of the F2F link elements are released to model the non-linear axial
tensile response of the hold-down rods.
4 ft. or 8 ft. Wood top plate:

0 ft.
Vertical
10 ft. wall
building
block Hold-down spring
Concrete foundation (ground floor)

or Wood sill plate (upper floors):
0 ft.
Hold-down rod springs

Tension
0.02 KThdr
FyThdr
KThdr KThdr
Compression

introduced by hold-down rods.
In tension, each F2F element is assigned an initial stiffness (KThdr) equal to

the tensile stiffness of the rod (Kr) over a floor height (10 ft.) in series with
the compression stiffness of a wood sill plate (Kw) under the plate washer of
the rod:
KrKw
K Thdr 
Kr  Kw
ErAr E w /R A pw C b
Kr  ; Kw 
hf h [4-4]
l  0.375
Cb  b
lb
where:
Er = Young’s modulus of the steel rod (29,000 ksi).
Ar = Cross-sectional area of the rod.
Hf = Floor height (10 ft.).
A yield strength in tension (FyThdr ) is equal to the gross area yield strength of
the rod with 2% strain hardening:
Fyhdr  A r Fyr
[4-5]
where Fyr is the yield strength of the steel rod (36 ksi).
In compression, a zero stiffness is assigned since it is already taken into

account by the compression stiffness of the end stud springs, as described in
Section 4.3.5.
Table 4-12 lists the physical properties, tensile stiffness values and yield
strengths assigned to the different hold-down rod springs for the different
hold-down rod configurations included in the archetype designs of Chapter 3.
Table 4-12 Physical Properties, Tensile stiffness and Yield Strength for
Hold-down Rod Configurations Contained in Chapter 3
Archetype Designs.
Ar Apw lb Kr Kw KThdr FyThdr

Configuration Cb
(in2) (in2) (in) (kip/in) (kip/in) (kip/in) (kip)
0.5" diameter rod;
2x sill plate; 5 in2 0.20 5.00 2.24 1.17 47 221 39 7.07
plate washer
0.5" diameter rod;
2x sill plate; 9 in2 0.20 9.00 3.00 1.13 47 383 42 7.07
plate washer
0.625" diameter
rod; 2x sill plate; 5 0.31 5.00 2.24 1.17 74 221 55 11.04
in2 plate washer
0.625" diameter
rod; 2x sill plate; 9 0.31 9.00 3.00 1.13 74 383 62 11.04
in2 plate washer
0.75" diameter
rod; 2x sill plate; 5 0.44 5.00 2.24 1.17 107 221 72 15.90
in2 plate washer
0.75" diameter
rod; 2x sill plate; 9 0.44 9.00 3.00 1.13 107 383 83 15.90
in2 plate washer
0.875" diameter
rod; 2x sill plate; 5 0.60 5.00 2.24 1.17 145 221 88 21.65
in2 plate washer
0.875" diameter
rod; 2x sill plate; 9 0.60 9.00 3.00 1.13 145 383 105 21.65
in2 plate washer
0.875" diameter
rod; 2x sill plate;
0.60 10.00 3.16 1.12 145 423 108 21.65
10 in2 plate
washer
0.875" diameter
rod; 2x sill plate;
0.60 13.50 3.67 1.10 145 562 115 21.65
13.5 in2 plate
washer
1" diameter rod;
2x sill plate; 5 in2 0.79 5.00 2.24 1.17 190 221 102 28.27
plate washer
1" diameter rod;
2x sill plate; 10 in2 0.79 10.00 3.16 1.12 190 423 131 28.27
plate washer
1" diameter rod;
2x sill plate; 13.5 0.79 13.50 3.67 1.10 190 562 142 28.27
in2 plate washer
1.125" diameter
rod; 2x sill plate;
0.99 10.00 3.16 1.12 240 423 153 35.78
10 in2 plate
washer
1.25" diameter
rod; 2x sill plate; 5 1.23 5.00 2.24 1.17 297 221 126 44.18
in2 plate washer
1.25" diameter
rod; 2x sill plate;
1.23 10.00 3.16 1.12 297 423 174 44.18
10 in2 plate
washer
4.3.7 Imperfect Connectivity from Conventional Hold-Down Devices
To model the influence of conventional hold-down devices on the non-linear

seismic response of the archetype designs of Chapter 3, non-linear F2F link
elements are introduced between the end studs of vertical wall building
blocks and the concrete foundation, as illustrated in Fig. 4-24. The concrete
foundation is modeled as an elastic beam element. The vertical DOFs of the
F2F link elements are released to model the non-linear axial tensile response
of the hold-down devices.

0 ft.
Vertical
10 ft. wall
building
block
Hold-down spring
Concrete foundation
0 ft.
Hold-down springs
Tension
 KThdd
FyThdd
KThdd KThdd
Compression
Figure 4-24 Schematic illustration of modeling of non-linear hold-down

devices.
In tension, the response of each hold down device is approximated by a bi-

linear force-displacement response. Each F2F element is assigned an initial
stiffness (KThdd) a yield strength (FyThdr) and a strain-hardening ratio (). In
compression, a zero stiffness is assigned since it is already taken into account
by the compression stiffness of the end stud springs, as described in Section
4.3.5. Table 4-13 describes and lists the physical properties assigned to the
various conventional hold-down devices contained in the archetype designs
of Chapter 3. These properties were approximated from an average of six
tests on each hold down device type (Pryor 2015).
Table 4-13 Description and Physical Properties of Conventional Hold-
down Devices Contained in Chapter 3 Archetype Designs.
KThdd FyThdd
Hold-down ID 
(kip/in) (kip)
HDU2 32.61 7.50 0.244
HDU8 88.10 18.50 0.302
HDU14 83.33 30.00 0.281
4.3.8 Imperfect Connectivity from Steel Straps
To model the influence of steel straps on the non-linear seismic response of

the archetype designs of Chapter 3, non-linear F2F link elements are
introduced between the end studs of vertical wall building blocks and the top
and bottom wood sill plates in the upper floors, as illustrated in Fig. 4-25.
The wood sill plates are modeled as an elastic beam element. The vertical
DOFs of the F2F link elements are released to model the non-linear axial
tensile response of the steel straps.

0 ft.
Vertical
10 ft. wall Steel strap springs
building
block
Wood bottom sill plate

0 ft.
Steel strap springs

Tension
0.02 KTss
FyTss
KThss KThss
Compression
Figure 4-25 Schematic illustration of modeling of non-linear hold-down

devices.
In tension, the response of each steel strap is approximated by a bi-linear

force-displacement response. In tension, each F2F element is assigned an
initial stiffness (KThss) equal to the tensile stiffness of the gross section of the
strap:
E ss A ss
K Tss  [4-6]
l ss
where:
Ess = Young’s modulus of the steel strap (29,000 ksi).
Ass = Cross-sectional area of the steel strap.
lss = Length of the steel strap.
A yield strength in tension (FyTss ) is equal to the published LRFD design

value (NDS 2012).
Table 4-14 describes and lists the physical properties assigned to the various
steel straps contained in the archetype designs of Chapter 3.
Table 4-14 Description and Physical Properties of Steel Straps

Ass lss KTss FyTss

Hold-down ID (in)
(in2) (kip/in) (kip)
MSTC 28 0.1875 28.25 193 1.56
MSTC 40 0.1875 40.25 135 3.64
MSTC 52 0.1875 52.25 104 5.72
4.3.9 Non-linear Soil Springs
Soil-structure interaction effects are modeled approximately by introducing

non-linear soil springs between the concrete foundation and fixed base nodes,
as illustrated in Fig. 4-26. F2F link elements are used to model the soil
springs. Three DOFs of the F2F link elements are released to model the soil
springs in the two horizontal and vertical directions. The concrete foundation
is modeled as an elastic beam element with high flexural stiffness.
Concrete foundation
(Elastic Beam element)
Nodes
Soil
0 ft.
Springs
Fixed
base
Nodes
Soil springs Soil springs
Horizontal Force-displacement response Vertical Force-displacement response
Tension Tension
KTss
KCss KCss
FyCss
0.1KCss
Compression Compression
Figure 4-26 Schematic illustration of modeling of non-linear soil springs.
Two different sites were selected with different target values of average
shear-velocity down to 30 m (VS30). The first site is a soft site with VS30 =
1180 ft./sec, while the second site is a stiff site with VS30 = 590 ft./sec. The
non-linear soils springs were derived for a Seismic Design Category (SDC)
D only.
In the horizontal direction, only linear soil springs with stiffness KTss were
developed. For the archetype designs of Chapter 3, the connectivity of the
footing to the slab provides a large area, which would make the horizontal
soils strength very high. In the vertical direction, bilinear compression-only
soils springs were developed. The initial compression stiffness values of the
vertical soil springs, KCss, were developed using the relations by Gazetas and
Roesset (1976, 1979). A post yield stiffness of 10% of the pre-yield stiffness
was selected based on judgement and observations of typical shapes of lab
stress-strain curves for soft to medium dense soil materials. No viscous
damping was provided with the soils springs because of inability of the
Timber 3D software to accommodate discrete viscous dashpot elements.
Hysteretic soil damping is introduced when the vertical non-linear soils
springs yield. The yield strength of the vertical soil springs, FyCss, is based on
a soil friction angle of 30o and a vertical effective stress doubled from the
total stress to allow for matric suction effects.
Table 4-15 lists the physical properties assigned to the various soil springs
included in the archetype designs of Chapter 3 considered for the Soil-
Structure Interaction (SSI)/foundation flexibility parametric study (see
Section 4.5.4). The horizontal and vertical stiffness values are provided in
units of stiffness per unit length. These values can be multiplied by a
tributary length for a given spring to compute the stiffness for that spring.
The Bearing capacity values for the vertical spring are provided in units of
force/area. These can be converted to a force capacity by multiplying by the
footing width and tributary length.
Table 4-15 Physical Properties of Non-linear Soil Springs Contained in

Soft Site Stiff Site

Archetype Building Block Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Vertical
ID Wall Springs Springs Springs Springs
(Table 4-16) Configurations FyCss FyCss
KTss KCss KTss KCss
Kip/ft Kip/ft
kip/in/ft kip/in/ft kip/in/ft kip/in/ft
COM1B-F All 27.7 40.3 4.5 358.7 462.7 23.5
8 ft. long 27.7 40.3 4.5 358.7 462.7 23.5

COM2B-F
4 ft. long 27.7 41.5 6.7 358.7 475.6 50.0
8 ft. long
27.7 42.0 8.4 358.7 483.9 71.4
Min/Max Gyp
4 ft. long
27.7 40.3 4.5 358.7 462.7 23.5
Min/Max Gyp
Nonstruc Gyp 27.7 40.3 4.5 358.7 462.7 23.5
MFD2B-F
8 ft. long
27.7 40.3 4.5 358.7 462.7 23.5
OSB
4 ft. long
27.7 40.9 5.6 358.7 470.4 33.3
OSB
OSB-Nonstruc 27.7 40.3 4.5 358.7 462.7 23.5
4.4 Analysis Methods
This section describes the various methods used to analyze the Chapter 3
archetype designs and the main response parameters that were calculated and
archived.
4.4.1 Overview
The following analysis methods were conducted on each archetype

configuration:
 Modal analyses to evaluate elastic natural periods and mode shapes.
 Non-linear static pushover analyses.
 Non-linear incremental dynamic analyses (IDAs) according to the
FEMA-695 methodology (FEMA 2009) for a defined set of MCER
ground motion intensities.
Details of these analysis methods are described in the following section.
4.4.2 Modal Analyses
Eigenvalues and eigenvectors analyses were conducted using elastic

properties in order to determine the initial natural periods, T1, and mode
shapes in each orthogonal direction of each archetype. The period
calculations are particularly important to insure that the archetype designs are
in the short-period range (T1 < 0.5 sec).
4.4.3 Non-linear Static Pushover Analyses
Non-linear static pushover analyses were conducted along each direction of

each archetype to extract the overall backbone base shear – roof
displacement response and to extract the P-795 characteristic parameters
defined in Section 4.3.3. The monotonic push was based on a first-mode
distribution of lateral forces. Second order (P-) effects were included.
4.4.4 Incremental Dynamic Analyses and Collapse Evaluation
Non-linear Incremental Dynamic Analyses (IDAs) according to the FEMA

P695 methodology were conducted on all Chapter 3 archetype designs for
specific levels of ground motion intensities (intensity stripes). The Timber3D
analysis program described above was used for this purpose. The 22 FEMA
P695 far-field ground motions set, with two horizontal components for each
motion, was used in all IDAs. The record set was scaled based on the median
spectra intensity (ST) at the code fundamental period of each archetype given
by the formulas of Section 12.8.2.1 of ASCE/SEI 7-15 (ASCE 2010), as
required by the FEMA P-695 methodology.
For each archetype, the IDAs were conducted for intensity stripes starting at
ST = 0.1 g. The intensity was increased by increments of 0.1g up to an
intensity level for which all (44) ground motions of the record set caused
collapse of the building model.
For each intensity stripe, 3D IDAs were conducted by applying the 22 FEMA
P695 far-field (FF) records (two components each) to the archetype model in
two orthogonal orientations (i.e., NS- EW and EW-NS orientations)
generating 44 response data for each response parameter of interest.
Therefore, the collapse statistics are based on 44 analyses. Note that in order
to represent realistic dynamic response and collapse mode at large
displacements, no inherent viscous damping was introduced in the archetype
models. From preliminary analysis results, it was found that even a small
amount of viscous damping generated significant artificial (an unrealistic)
restoring forces once the hysteretic damping from vertical wall building
blocks were near exhausted near collapse.
Since 3D IDAs were conducted, the calculated median collapse intensities

were multiplied by a factor of 1.2 per FEMA P-695 methodology to take into
account 3D effects. Because the displacement capacities of the backbone
curves shown in Figs. 4-18 and 4-19 are much larger than that assumed by
the FEMA P-695 methodology (i.e. collapse at 80% of peak strength on the
post-capping branch), the period based ductility factor, T, used to define
spectral shape factors (SSF) were considered unrealistically low. Therefore,
the maximum SSF values (based on the code fundamental period for each
archetype model) were used to multiply the median collapse intensities.
Finally, a dispersion factor (standard deviation of the logarithmic values of
collapse statistics)  = 0.50 was used to define all adjusted collapse fragility
curves.
4.4.5 Peak Response Calculation
A number of response parameters of interest (stripe statistics) was post-

processed and archived at each intensity strip to determine the statistics of
peak response of each archetype. Table 4-16 lists the stripe statistics that
were archived for each orthogonal (NS and EW) direction of each archetype
model.
Table 4-16 Description of Stripe Statistics Archived for Each Orthogonal
(NS and EW) directions of the Chapter 3 Archetype Designs.
Statistic Type Response Parameters Statistic Values
Peak Relative  Peak Roof Relative Displacement  Median1

Displacement  Peak Roof Drift Ratio  Mean of Survivors2
 Peak Story Drift Ratio5  Overall Mean3
 Overall Beta4
Peak Relative  Peak Roof Relative Velocity  Minimum
Velocity  Peak Floor Relative Velocity  Maximum
Peak Absolute  Peak Roof Absolute Acceleration

Acceleration  Peak Floor Absolute Acceleration
Residual  Residual Roof Displacement

Relative  Residual Roof Drift Ratio
Displacement  Residual Story Drift Ratio5
Collapse  All Records Collapse Cases  Number

 Percentage
 Individual Record Collapse  Collapse (Yes/No)

Cases  If No: Peak Roof Displacement
 If Yes:
 Peak Roof Displacement at
Last Surviving Intensity; Floor
Level Initiating Collapse and
Collapse Direction.
Notes:
1Calculated median = fitted lognormal based on all 44 earthquake records with last
values of non-surviving records.

2Mean value of surviving earthquake records only.
3Mean of all 44 earthquake records with last values for non-surviving records.
4Beta = lognormal standard deviation of all 44 earthquake records with last values of
non-surviving records.
5Calculated for each floor of multi-story archetypes.
4.5 Archetype Models for Parametric Studies
The Chapter 3 archetype models were used to conduct parametric studies of

various modeling techniques and parameters. The parametric studies evaluate
and compare the collapse performance of the archetype models based on the
FEMA P695 methodology described in the previous section. Six different
parametric studies vary the strength and other properties of “baseline”
archetype models in order to evaluate the effect of these properties on the
dynamic response and seismic collapse capacity. This section describes the
baseline archetype models and their variants used in the six parametric
studies conducted.
4.5.1 Baseline Archetype Models
Baseline archetypes are modeled with the “best estimate” of vertical wall
building blocks properties described in Section 4.3.3, including a residual
post-capping strength of 30% of the peak strength. The baseline archetypes
incorporate also typical types and configurations of nonstructural wall
components per Chapter 3 designs. A total of 28 baseline archetype models
were developed for each combination of light-frame wood building type (i.e.,
Commercial - COM, Multi-Family Dwelling - MFD and Single-Family
Dwelling - SFD), height (one, two and four stories) and seismic design level
(e.g., High Seismic - SDC Dmax, Very High Seismic - 1.5 x SDC Dmax and
Moderate Seismic - SDC Cmax).
Table 4-17 summarizes the set of baseline archetypes and their variants
included for parametric study of analytical modeling topics. Three different
types pf occupancy are considered: 1) commercial (COM) buildings, 2)
multi-family dwellings (MFD), and 3) Single-family dwellings (SFD).
Archetype ID nomenclature indicates whether the archetype is a “baseline”
model (e.g., COM2B) or a variant of the baseline model (e.g., COM2B-A for
the baseline model COM2B modified to include imperfect connectivity of
hold-down anchors). Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of variants
when two or greater variant archetype models are considered for the study.
A grand total of 78 short-period light-frame wood-building building

archetype models were considered in six different parametric studies as
follows.
 28 baseline archetypes across three occupancies, three

heights/configurations, three seismic design levels and two seismic
design approach (engineered and conventional).
 18 variants for investigation of collapse displacement capacity.
 12 variants for investigation of SSI/foundation flexibility.
 8 variants for investigation of imperfect connectivity.
 10 variants each for investigation of non-structural wall finishes.
 Three variants each for investigation of mass distribution.
Table 4-17 Summary of Baseline and Variants of Short-Period Light-
Frame Wood Building Archetypes of Parametric Studies
Parametric Study Archetype ID
Arche- (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
type No. of Configu- Ultimate SSI/Founda- Imperfect Non-structural Mass
Type ID Arche- ration Collapse tion Connec- Finishes Distribution
types Flexibility
Capacity tivity
PG-1 – Commercial Buildings in High Seismic Areas
COM1 3 COM1B COM1B-F(2)
COM2 12 COM2B COM2B-C(6) COM2B-F(2) COM2B-A COM2B-NS COM2B-M
COM3 1 COM3B
PG-2 – Commercial Buildings in Very High Seismic Areas
COM4 3 COM4B COM4B-F(2)
COM5 4 COM5B COM5B-F(2) COM5B-A
COM6 1 COM6B
PG-3 – Commercial Buildings in Moderate Seismic Areas
COM7 1 COM7B
COM8 1 COM8B
COM9 1 COM9B
PG-4 – Multi-Family Residential Buildings in High Seismic Areas
MFD1 1 MFD1B
MFD2 12 MFD2B MFD2B-C(6) MFD2B-F(2) MFD2B-A MFD2B-NS MFD2B-M
MFD3 2 MFD3B MFD3B-A
PG-5 – Multi-Family Residential Buildings in Very High Seismic Areas
MFD4 1 MFD4B
MFD5 4 MFD5B MFD5B-F(2) MFD5B-A
MFD6 2 MFD6B MFD6B-A
PG-6 – Multi-Family Residential Buildings in Moderate Seismic Areas
MFD7 1 MFD7B
MFD8 1 MFD8B
MFD9 1 MFD9B
PG-7 – Single-Family Residential Buildings in High Seismic Areas
4 SFD1B SFD1B-NS(2) SFD1B-M
SFD1B
3 SFD1BC SFD1BC-NS(2)
10 SFD2B SFD2B-C(6) SFD2B-A SFD2B-NS(2)
SFD2B
3 SFD2BC SFD2BC-NS(2)
PG-8 – Single-Family Residential Buildings in Very High Seismic Areas
SFD3 1 SFD3B
SFD3A 1 SFD3AB
SFD4 2 SFD4B SFD4B-A
Performance Group PG-9 – Single-Family Residential Buildings in Moderate Seismic Areas
SFD5 1 SFD5B
SFD5A 1 SFD5AB
SFD6 1 SFD5B
4.5.2 Configuration (Height/Interior Walls) Parametric Study
The 28 baseline archetype models are used for the parametric study of
configuration. Response and collapse analysis results of baseline archetype
model reported in Chapter 5 provide the primary basis for evaluating short-
period light-frame wood building performance as a function of building
period (i.e., building height) for typical configurations of short-period
commercial, multi-family dwelling and single-family dwelling buildings.
4.5.3 Collapse Displacement Capacity Parametric Study
Three, high-seismic, baseline archetypes (e.g., COM2B, MFD2B and

SFD2B) were modified to include six variants of baseline residual post-
capping strength (e.g., 0%, 10%, 20%, 40%, 50% and 60%) from the
baseline archetype residual post-capping strength of 30% of peak strength. A
total of 18 modified archetype models were developed. Two-story COM,
MFD and SFD archetypes are selected for this parametric study as residual
post-capping strength would not have as much effect on single-story
archetypes, and the desire to compare results of COM and MFD buildings of
comparable height. Response and collapse results of the analyses of these
variants archetype models (and corresponding baseline archetype models)
described in Chapter 5 provide the basis for evaluating the effects of residual
post-capping strength on short-period light-frame wood building
performance.
4.5.4 SSI/Foundation Flexibility Parametric Study
Three, high-seismic, baseline archetypes (e.g., COM1B, COM2B, MFD2B)

and three, very high-seismic, baseline archetypes (e.g., COM4B, COM5B
and MFD5B) were each modified to include two variants of SSI/foundation
flexibility (e.g., non-linear soil springs representing two sets of typical site
conditions). A total of 12 modified archetype models were developed. The
effects of SSI/foundation flexibility are expected to be more pronounced for
larger (heavier) structures of shorter period. The two-story COM and SFD
building archetypes are included in this parametric study as a compromise of
weight and period. The one-story COM building archetypes are also included
in this parametric study because their periods are shorter than that of the one-
story MFD building archetypes (which have shorter segments of shear wall).
SFD building archetypes are not included in this study since effects of
SSI/foundation flexibility are presumed to be more significant for larger
(heavier) COM and MFD building archetypes. As discussed in Chapter 5,
comparisons of response and collapse results of the analyses of variant
archetype models (with soil springs) with the results of the analyses of the
corresponding baseline archetype models (without soil springs) provide the
basis for evaluating the effects of modeling SSI/flexibility on short-period
light-frame wood building performance.
4.5.5 Imperfect Connectivity Parametric Study
Eight modified archetype models were developed for this parametric study.
Four, high seismic, baseline archetypes (COM2B, MFD2B, MFD3B and
SFD2B) and four, very high seismic, baseline archetypes (COM5B, MFD5B,
MFD6B and SFD4B) were modified to incorporate flexible anchorage (i.e.,
non-linear hold-down F2F link elements). The effects of imperfect
connectivity (hold-down) flexibility are expected to be more pronounced for
taller buildings with shorter lengths of shear wall (i.e., more susceptible to
overturning forces). Selection of four-story MFD building archetypes is
based on their taller height and the assumption that MFD building wall
segments are more susceptible to rocking and uplift than longer COM
building wall segments. Comparison of response and collapse results of the
analyses of these variant archetype models (with flexible connections) with
the results of the analyses of corresponding baseline archetypes models (with
rigid connections) will provide the basis for evaluating the effects of
modeling imperfect connectivity on short-period light-frame wood building
performance.
4.5.6 Interior/Exterior Wall Finishes Parametric Study
Four, high-seismic, baseline archetypes (e.g., COM2B, MFD2B, SFD1B and

SFD2B) were modified by removing non-structural wall components
(exterior and interior finishes). Comparison of response and collapse results
of the analyses of variant archetype models (without exterior and interior
finishes) with the results of the analyses of corresponding baseline
archetypes models (with finishes) will provide the basis for evaluating the
effects of interior/exterior finishes on short-period light-frame wood building
performance.
4.5.7 Mass Distribution Parametric Study
Three high-seismic, baseline archetypes (e.g., COM2B, MFD2B and SFD1B)

were modified by adjusting the vertical distribution of mass (over story
height). As discussed in Chapter 5, comparisons of response and collapse
results of the analyses of variant archetype models (with more finely
distributed mass) with the results of the analyses of corresponding baseline
archetype models (with mass lumped vertically at floor levels) provide the
basis for evaluating the effects of more accurately modelling distributing
mass on short-period light-frame wood building performance.
4.6 Summary
The methods used to develop and analyze the non-linear numerical models of
short-period light-frame wood buildings from the archetype designs of
Chapter 3 are at the cutting-edge of capabilities at the time of writing. The 78
archetype models developed for the six different parametric studies
conducted in this project provide for the first time the basis for evaluating the
effects of various modeling techniques and parameters on short-period light-
frame wood building performance. The results of the parametric studies are
described and discussed in Chapter 5.
4.7 List of References - Chapter 4
Christovasilis, I.P. and Filiatrault, A. 2010. “Two-Dimensional Seismic

Analysis of Multi-Story Light-Frame Wood Buildings,” 9th US
National & 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering:
Reaching Beyond Borders,” Toronto, Canada, Paper No. 69, 10 p.
Christovasilis, I.P. and Filiatrault, A. 2013. “Numerical Framework for Non-

linear Analysis of Two-Dimensional Light-Frame Wood Structures,”
Ingegneria Sismica: International Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
XXX(4), 5-25.
Carr J. RUAUMOKO. University of Canterbury, New Zealand,

http://www.ruaumoko.co.nz/, 2007.
Carrandine, D. 2013. “Load Testing of a Two Classroom Avalon Block at

Carleton South End School,” Report ST0961, BRANZ Ltd, Porirua
City, New Zealand, 42 p.
FEMA P695. 2009. “Quantification of Building Seismic Performance

Factors,” Prepared by the Applied Technology for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 421 p.
ASCE 2010. “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,”
ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA.
FEMA P795. 2011. “Quantification of Building Seismic Performance

Factors: Component Equivalency Methodology,” Prepared by the
Applied Technology for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, DC, 292 p.
FEMA P807. 2012. “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-Unit Wood-

Frame Buildings With Weak First Stories,” Prepared by the Applied
Technology for the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, DC, 336 p.
Folz, B., and Filiatrault, A. 2001. “Cyclic Analysis of Wood Shear Walls”,
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 127(4), 433-441.
Gatto, K., and Uang, C-M. 2001. “Cyclic Response of Woodframe

Shearwalls: Loading Protocol and Rate of Loading Effects,” Report
No. SSRP-2001/06, Structural System Research Project, Department
of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La
Jolla, CA, 233 p.
Gazetas, G. and Roesset, J. M., 1979, "Vertical Vibrations of Machine

Foundations," J. Geotech. Engng. Div., ASCE, 105,GT12,1435.
Gazetas, G. and Roesset, J. M., 1976,"Forced Vibrations of Strip Footings on

Layered Soils," Meth. Struct. Anal., ASCE, 1,115.
Koliou, M., Filiatrault, A., Kelly, D.J. and Lawson, J. 2014. “Numerical
Framework for Seismic Collapse Assessment of Rigid Wall-Flexible
Diaphragm Structures,” 10th US National Conference on Earthquake,
Anchorage, Alaska, Paper ID: 282.
Koliou, M., Filiatrault, A., Kelly, D.J. and Lawson, J. 2015. “Distributed
Yielding Concept for Improved Seismic Collapse Performance of
Rigid Wall-Flexible Diaphragm Buildings,” ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering (in press).
NDS 2012. “2012 National Design Specification for Wood Construction,”

American Wood Council, Washington, DC.
Pang, W., Ziaei, E. and Filiatrault, A. 2012. “A 3D Model for Collapse

Analysis of Soft-story Light-Frame Wood Buildings,” World
Conference on Timber Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 7 p.
Pryor, S. 2015. Private Communication.
Swensen, S., Acevedo, C., Jampole, E., Miranda, E., and Deierlein, G. 2014.
“Toward Damage Free Residential Houses Through UniBody Light-
Frame Construction with Seismic Isolation,” SEAOC 2014 83rd
Annual Convention Proceedings, 15 p.
Tokas, C. and Lobo, R. 2012. “Hospital Seismic Safety Program and Strong
Motion Instrumentation,” Proceedings of SMIP12 Seminar on
Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, Sacramento, CA, 111-124.
van de Lindt, Symans, M.D., Pang, W., Shao, X., and Gershfeld, M. (2012),
Seismic Risk Reduction for Soft-story Woodframe Building: The
NEES-Soft Project”, 121th World Conference on Timber
Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Jul 16-19.

Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 4

Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period

This chapter describes the methods used to develop non-linear numerical

4.2 Relevant Findings of the Phase I Pilot Study

In Phase I of the project, a Pilot Study was conducted on the Templeton

4.2.2 Overview of Templeton Hospital

The Templeton Hospital is a one-story, irregular light-frame wood building

Wall inelastic spring

Roof diaphragm Roof diaphragm

4.2.3 Wall inelastic spring of the Templeton Hospital

The Templeton Hospital building survived the relatively strong ground

Modeled North Wing

Figure 4-3 Location of nine channels of strong motion instrumentation of

4.2.4 Modeling and Scope

Two non-linear numerical models of the selected North wing of the

 Model 1: A basic model reflecting current modeling practice and

The development of the two models used the numerical framework

4.2.5 Main Findings – Model 1

Figure 4-4 Pushover curves predicted by Model 1.

T1=0.160 sec T2=0.158 sec T3=0.070 sec

1000 1000 1000

Figure 4-5 Natural periods and mode shapes predicted by Model 1.

Figure 4-6 Comparison of measured and predicted East-West response by

0.6 Channel 9 - NS Model 1a

Figure 4-7 Comparison of measured and predicted North-South response

4.2.6 Main Findings – Model 2

Figure 4-8 Pushover curves predicted by Model 2.

T1=0.190sec T2=0.188 sec

1000 1000 1000

Figure 4-9 Natural periods and mode shapes predicted by Model 2.

Figure 4-10 Comparison of measured and predicted East-West response by

Figure 4-11 Comparison of measured and predicted North-South response

Bi-directional Incremental Dynamic Analyses (IDAs) were conducted using

4.2.7 Summary of Findings

The pilot study conducted on a well-instrumented wing of the Templeton

4.3 Modeling Methods

For modeling the inelastic dynamic response and seismic collapse

4.3.1 Overview of Timber3D

The Timber3D analysis program is a three-dimensional (3D) model

The Timber3D model operates on the Matlab platform using a co-rotational

The non-linear lateral cyclic response of vertical walls is captured by the

Figure 4-13 CUREE hysteretic rule for modeling force-displacement

Table 4-1 Definition of Hysteretic Parameters of CUREE Hysteretic

Figure 4-14 Modification of CUREE hysteretic rule for modeling residual

4.3.2 Baseline Archetype Models

Figure 4-15 illustrates a single-story short-period light-frame wood baseline

Figure 4-15 Schematic illustration of 1-story 3D “baseline” model

4.3.3 Non-linear Wall “Building Blocks”

To avoid unnecessary detailed modeling of unique wall properties, all

 The axial and in-plane flexural deformation of the end studs.

 The in-plane flexural deformation of the top and bottom plates.

Wood sill plate:

Figure 4-16 Schematic illustration of vertical wall building block.

1. Walls with similar sheathing materials on both sides are added

a. Walls sheathed on two sides with wood structural panels.

b. Walls sheathed with any type of gypsum on both sides

7/16 in. OSB sheathing on Douglas Fir Framing, single-row of 8d

A set of 10 CUREE hysteretic parameters were defined for each of the

Table 4-4 CUREE Hysteretic Parameters for 4 ft. x 10 ft. Individual

Table 4-5 lists the 32 building block combinations (combining multiple

OSB-Low with Stucco over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on inside

4’x10’ Building Blocks 8’x10’ Building Blocks

K40 u,80 u,max K40 u,80 u,max